Quantum Entanglement?

[Anunnaki]

If our theory of Quantum Entanglement is accurate, could that be a means to other dimensions? Or even more so, since we are all made up of pieces of old stars, planets, and matter, could we ourselves be entangled with other particles in other parts of the universe? Perhaps, visions we see, certain feelings, etc could us be interacting with these entanglements. I like to go down these kinds of rabbit holes, feel free to endulge lol. The questions unasked can never be answered.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

you don't understand what is entanglement

entanglement is an event that you wish to achieve in the same correspondence that you have expected in time

Edited May 2, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Phi for All]

If our theory of Quantum Entanglement is accurate, could that be a means to other dimensions?

 

No.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.^{%5B1%5D%5B2%5D} Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it – for example, the point at 5 on a number line. A surface such as a [plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it – for example, both a latitude and longitude are required to locate a point on the surface of a sphere. The inside of a cube, a cylinder or a sphere is three-dimensional because three coordinates are needed to locate a point within these spaces.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Good luck !!+ do experiments ~ this will help you to understand..

Edited May 2, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Anunnaki]

So other dimensions do not exist? I believe that would go against what some of the best minds in science believe. Just because we can't physically see or touch a 4th dimension does not mean it doesn't exist. We know gamma rays exist yet we can't see them. Why is it so out of the realm of possibility? I never claimed to understand quantum Entanglement, only what I have heard. I was asking a question to open discussions, not one word or one sentence close minded "no your wrong" reaponses. That's actually completely unintelligent and contributes nothing.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Anunnaki

[Anunnaki]

No no not saying I know better, and was not referring to you. I admit my knowledge of Quantum mechanics is limited. However when you look at our knowledge of everything, it's rather limited and assuming. Most of what we have and base everything on is theory and not actually fact. We barely scratched the surface on quantum mechanics. But other dimensions I believe absolutely exist. Or maybe our thoughts of a dimension is wrong, and spacetime itself could be another dimension. The faster you travel to the speed of light, the slower time moves. So if I traveled 1 year at the speed of light, and returned to Earth, did I not time travel is the eyes of the people on earth? Couldn't that be considered another dimension besides height, width, and depth?

[Itoero]

If our theory of Quantum Entanglement is accurate, could that be a means to other dimensions? Or even more so, since we are all made up of pieces of old stars, planets, and matter, could we ourselves be entangled with other particles in other parts of the universe? Perhaps, visions we see, certain feelings, etc could us be interacting with these entanglements. I like to go down these kinds of rabbit holes, feel free to endulge lol. The questions unasked can never be answered.

The matter in the universe was once a lot more compact, that might imply a high degree of entanglement of particles in the universe. This imo fits with the 'idea' that entanglement builds space time.

 

Everything is entangled.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931200994X

[Delta1212]

No no not saying I know better, and was not referring to you. I admit my knowledge of Quantum mechanics is limited. However when you look at our knowledge of everything, it's rather limited and assuming. Most of what we have and base everything on is theory and not actually fact. We barely scratched the surface on quantum mechanics. But other dimensions I believe absolutely exist. Or maybe our thoughts of a dimension is wrong, and spacetime itself could be another dimension. The faster you travel to the speed of light, the slower time moves. So if I traveled 1 year at the speed of light, and returned to Earth, did I not time travel is the eyes of the people on earth? Couldn't that be considered another dimension besides height, width, and depth?

Time is generally considered to be a dimension. Spacetime consists of three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension.

 

So that's not a case of our idea of dimensions being wrong. That is, in fact, our idea of how dimensions work in the context of spacetime. That's why it's called spacetime.

[Mordred]

Course it would make much more sense if everyone understood what a mathematical dimension is..

 

ie an independent variable. Example a cube has 3 independent variables. length, width, depth either one can change without affecting the others.

 

Spacetime simply adds the independent variable time as a dimension *mathematical.

 

Another example string theory. Each dimension is mathematical or the holographic principle (a reduction of the number of independant variables to describe spacetime etc.)

 

"In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it."

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

Edited May 3, 2017 by Mordred

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

So other dimensions do not exist? I believe that would go against what some of the best minds in science believe. Just because we can't physically see or touch a 4th dimension does not mean it doesn't exist. We know gamma rays exist yet we can't see them. Why is it so out of the realm of possibility? I never claimed to understand quantum Entanglement, only what I have heard. I was asking a question to open discussions, not one word or one sentence close minded "no your wrong" reaponses. That's actually completely unintelligent and contributes nothing.

 

 

 

So other dimensions do not exist? I believe that would go against what some of the best minds in science believe.

 

Yes! _I do believe it does exist.../

 

My Cote.>> ''Roger Dynamic Motion''

A message can be send from present to pass and pass to present > but !~ never from future to pass or pass to future ; the future do not belong to ''time frame'' it's a mere vision of the mind ''only'' .it does not possess any entity in motion....cause !~matter, is not present .

Edited May 4, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Quantum Theory from The Lounge. Questions on entanglement can be answered, but if non-mainstream explanations continue, I can move this to Speculations where such will obviously be challenged. Let's be a bit more rigorous, people.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Quantum Theory from The Lounge. Questions on entanglement can be answered, but if non-mainstream explanations continue, I can move this to Speculations where such will obviously be challenged. Let's be a bit more rigorous, people.

ok~ thanks !

Edited May 4, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Sensei]

So other dimensions do not exist?

Your understanding of what is dimension, is like from sci-fi movie, unfortunately.

 

Just because we can't physically see or touch a 4th dimension does not mean it doesn't exist.

You can't see or touch any dimension.

You can move in dimension (x, y or z), or occupy it (f.e. 3D volume).

 

We know gamma rays exist yet we can't see them.

Gamma rays can be seen. Or rather effects they have after hitting matter, when they ionize atom and electrons are ejected, or nucleus is photo-disintegrated, or when pair of matter-antimatter is created, etc. etc.

Basically any particle can be detected only from the way it interact with other particles.

 

This is how gamma rays and x-rays interact with matter:

(title is incorrectly labeled "x ray interactions" while part of these interactions are only possible for gamma rays)

 

Pair-production of matter-antimatter produces entangled particles.

When you check spin or charge of one particle, you know that other particle will have opposite property value.

[Anunnaki]

Lol yea i an aware we can "see" them with instruments, thats not what I said. I meant we can't see them, as in, with the naked eye. You can not look out your window and see a gamma ray. That's why I said we can't see them, but we know they exist. How else would we know they exist if we had no way of knowing they exist? Lol that's definitely taking things insanely and wildly literal.

You did nothing but prove my points even more so, so I guess thank you? Even though u were definitely not trying to be helpful, more facetious than anything. The lack of understanding and overly deliberate way to avoid having an actual discussion and just pick apart every sentence and pull it apart from its context to make some nonsensical remark, on a science forum, is remarkable. It's as if there's no interest in different views, just accepted theories and concepts and we know everything already. Lol its mind boggling

I really don't believe in the idea that a dimension is a plane like its shown so many times, considered to be parallel, but not intersecting. I believe it's more of a spherical bubble that can bend and contort with intersecting, overlapping parts, and one inside another, with much larger and smaller ones, all interconnected and together. It doesn't make worm holes any more or less possible, but it seems to make more sense when you consider how things are entangled and connected. You have a string dimension, then a quantum, then a molecular, then a complex, then planetary, and then a universal.

[Phi for All]

I really don't believe in the idea that a dimension is a plane like its shown so many times, considered to be parallel, but not intersecting. I believe it's more of a ...

 

!

Moderator Note

Science isn't interested in what you "believe". Dimensions are a well-known part of modern science, so if you've got some other idea, you're going to need to show why it's better than current mainstream theory that has mountains of evidence supporting it. You can try to support your non-mainstream ideas in our Speculations section, but be aware that it's not a place for guesswork. Support your concepts, please.

[Mordred]

Course it would make much more sense if everyone understood what a mathematical dimension is..

 

ie an independent variable. Example a cube has 3 independent variables. length, width, depth either one can change without affecting the others.

 

Spacetime simply adds the independent variable time as a dimension *mathematical.

 

Another example string theory. Each dimension is mathematical or the holographic principle (a reduction of the number of independant variables to describe spacetime etc.)

 

"In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it."

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

Take it from someone that has studied string theory including the nitty gritty mathematical details. The above still applies.

 

The higher dimensions in string theory are imbedded geometries. The dimensions are degrees of freedom due to different interactions. This is a differential geometry technique fundamental in symmetry grouping.

 

In other words mathematical dimensions not dimension from science fiction ie different overlapping universes.

[Handy andy]

I understand a quantum entangled particle is restricted in its degrees of movement. If particle A rotates 90 degrees, particle B mirrors -90 degrees, but if particle A rotates j90 particle B does nothing . Almost like only restricted dimensional information is getting through, is any of this correct.

[imatfaal]

I understand a quantum entangled particle is restricted in its degrees of movement. If particle A rotates 90 degrees, particle B mirrors -90 degrees, but if particle A rotates j90 particle B does nothing . Almost like only restricted dimensional information is getting through, is any of this correct.

 

Not really - entanglement does not really work like that.

 

Entangled particles have a strange state of existence in that the two particles do not have two individual states - but instead they share an entangled state. When you measure one particle to find out what its properties are then the entanglement is broken and each particle immediately resolves into a normal state - the two normal states that the particles end up in are correlated or anti-correlated. What is spooky is that we can show that this happens faster than any communication could possibly happen between the two particles. And that we can also show that the state of the particles was not merely hidden till measurement - but it was this special undetermined entangled state.

 

So entanglement is not as useful as twist one particle and the other twists in the opposite direction - but it is still damn weird and it still flies in the face of classsical physics

[Laughablestuff]

Hey, I just want to point out, the most forward theories on dimensions actually explore the likelihood vs non likelihood of them existing. Regardless of what the people themselves say or write in Autobiographies and such, the math those theories use, we can't disprove and thus call theories, actually still doesn't specify that other dimensions do or do not exist. Only that it is a possibility until we

a. Figure out why they can't exist

B. Prove they do exist with observable evidence.

I apologize but it does not seem correct to say everything we know says dimensions beyond ours exist

[Mordred]

Yes there are models that propose alternate universe style dimensions. Unfortunately the common misconception is that every model does so past 4 dimensions.

 

Good example being string theory. It is important to understand the difference

[Anunnaki]

Science isn't interested in what I believe? Lol science isn't interested in what other science believes. That's a dumb statement. That's why there are hundreds of theories and actually few "facts". Should I be saying I "hypothesis" instead? Does that make it more scientific? This is a forum not a seminar or thesis paper. I'm quite sure this is not considered a place to quote from or site in a thesis. Please, take yourselves a little less seriously. It's a discussion board, we are having a discussion. If you can't express opinion on a forum then really where else can you? Lol. You really need to take yourselves a little less serious.

[Mordred]

Its also a good way to discuss what models actually state instead of the numerous misunderstandings and misconceptions.

 

A good example is the many worlds interpretation in QM. The pop media descriptions tend to give the wrong meaning. The purpose is simply to define superposition (which is a statistical mathematical term).

 

If we didn't point out errors we would be encouraging wrong thinking and furthering misunderstandings.

 

So I disagree we should take every post seriously. We should point out obvious errors. After all every post is being read by members and non members that aren't even involved in the thread.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Mordred

[Handy andy]

 

Not really - entanglement does not really work like that.

 

Entangled particles have a strange state of existence in that the two particles do not have two individual states - but instead they share an entangled state. When you measure one particle to find out what its properties are then the entanglement is broken and each particle immediately resolves into a normal state - the two normal states that the particles end up in are correlated or anti-correlated. What is spooky is that we can show that this happens faster than any communication could possibly happen between the two particles. And that we can also show that the state of the particles was not merely hidden till measurement - but it was this special undetermined entangled state.

 

So entanglement is not as useful as twist one particle and the other twists in the opposite direction - but it is still damn weird and it still flies in the face of classsical physics

 

Could quantum entanglement be explained by something along the lines off, all points in space can be or were connected by a time independent spatial dimension, which can only transmit a very limited amount of information. Once the entanglement is broken between (packets of energy, waves)particles or photons of light it is broken for good. After the entanglement is broken between particles the usual forces are the only ones that come into play.

 

@ Annuki, Ref the science fiction extra dimensions or parallel universes and paradoxes only one answer is right, but it makes a good story .

 

@ All, Along the lines of extra dimensions philosophically could both space and zero space exist at the same time, with a zero space dimension connecting other space dimensions. Do any of the string theories available include extra special dimensions that cover this.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Handy andy

[imatfaal]

Science isn't interested in what I believe? Lol science isn't interested in what other science believes. That's a dumb statement. That's why there are hundreds of theories and actually few "facts". Should I be saying I "hypothesis" instead? Does that make it more scientific? This is a forum not a seminar or thesis paper. I'm quite sure this is not considered a place to quote from or site in a thesis. Please, take yourselves a little less seriously. It's a discussion board, we are having a discussion. If you can't express opinion on a forum then really where else can you? Lol. You really need to take yourselves a little less serious.

 

Belief is the acceptance of an argument without evidence - there really is no place for that in science. We don't "believe" in quantum mechanical phenomena - we measure, we experiment, and we model; quantum mechanics is the best model we have which explains all the measurements, has not yet been shown to be invalid by experiment, and fits in with other parts of our theory of nature.

 

There are an almost endless supply of theories - but there is an endless and ever-varying supply of fact. And the facts will all fit together with the correct model - but there is no guarantee than the theories will.

 

You are correct this is a forum and not a seminar - but incorrect in thinking that this fact gives us licence to be sloppy. We strive to adopt a scientific approach and eschew pop-science and pseudoscience; we know that we will not reach the rigor of a university seminar but that is no reason not to try.

 

I have quoted from here in academic papers.

 

Take ourselves less seriously - right. I should change my views, Phi should alter his perspective , and all the other members with hundreds of thousands of posts between them should reconsider because a member with 8 posts says so - right. We like science, we post here because of that shared interest; if we wanted to just chew the fat we would post elsewhere (and many of us do)

[Anunnaki]

I posted this in the "lounge", under the assumption it was an area open to opinion, discussion, open minded thoughts to bounce off one another in the efforts of hearing new ideas. I didnt move this topic, the "moderator" did, then criticized me for having an opinion on a forum he deemed unscientific when he moved it there. That's why I said take yourselves a little less seriously. I don't care what you believe or think. But fact is fact, and theory is not fact. The fact we base so much of our "knowledge" and our outlooks on theories to me is narrowing not broadening because people use other people's work not knowing all the nuances, then try to incorporate it into something else. I never claimed to know more than anyone, but immediately noticed how closed minded this community is. Alls I offered was questions, if u can answer the questions, then good, but if your answers only bring more questions then that's good too, until we get to a point where there is no clear answer, then there's something to look for.